2 ms·
Still, "Giovanni Stanchi's painting from the 17th century shows how much watermelon has changed" is a fundamentally incorrect statement even if he was accuratel
by causality0 6y ago
Still, "Giovanni Stanchi's painting from the 17th century shows how much watermelon has changed" is a fundamentally incorrect statement even if he was accurately depicting a variety of watermelon. It would be a now-uncommon or extinct cultivar, not the precursor to modern watermelons since they already existed. It's like showing a painting of a Salish Wool Dog and remarking on how it shows dogs have changed.
- Retric 6y agoExcept different breeds of apples etc are still called apples. If a type of watermelon went from common to extreme rarity that’s a change in what’s being planted and consumed. Presumably because of some issues with the earlier version of what we are now consuming.
- causality0 6y agoIt gives the lay reader a false impression that today's watermelons are direct descendants of Stanchi's type in the same way today's corn is a direct descendant of teosinte.
- Retric 6y agoThat’s really only speaking to the ignorance of readers as progressive refinement in agriculture generally involves close relatives rather than direct descendants. Disease resistance for example is frequently the issue causing such jumps. Availability is what’s important to consumers not genetic history.